MiFID 2 does not require nanosecond accuracy. It's something like 100 microseconds in the strictest case.
Some MiFID reports require microsecond or perhaps nanosecond precision, but that's really just a formatting requirement "please write your timestamps with six figures after the decimal point."
But Órfhlaith Begley does go to Westminster, and she has an access badge for the Houses of Parliament, and she flies over there and works in her office in the parliament buildings and answers her @parliament.co.uk emails and asks her staffers (paid for by the parliament) to respond to letters on paper headed Órfhlaith Begley MP. All the work of an MP except the most performative part.
She just doesn't go into the room which is called the House of Commons and try to speak or vote there, because the armed guards at the door won't let in anyone who doesn't swear allegiance to the King. If swearing allegiance to the King was a requirement to use the email system, then she wouldn't do that either.
Aside from all the other objections from this: broadly speaking, if you lose your job and can't get another one, the economy will be bad and house prices will fall.
Not true for absolutely everyone, and as an individual you may feel you can't take this bet even though it's good in aggregate. A great social security system would allow you to take this bet without paying out too much to people who always made bad choices.
I think they don't approve of the Crown as an authority even if they agree it's lawfully established?
It's more like an atheist refusing to swear an oath before God in a courtroom: even if you agree that the law says you must do so, you might still not want to give God that recognition. But worse, because God might also be the defendant and the judge in this case, and you have to swear not only that He might witness your testimony but also that you pledge allegiance to Him, so swearing that oath really impairs your ability to participate in a fair trial.
Likewise, nobody will be all that surprised, or disappointed, if Binface never takes his seat. It's much more of a protest vote than voting Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, and voters will have achieved their aim of Farage not getting in.
Actually, I'd take issue with describing Sinn Féin as a protest vote at all. They've historically been the only choice that even claim to represent constituents in many areas. And they do seem to do much of the work of an MP (writing letters on behalf of constituents, lobbying government agencies...) they just don't vote or debate.
This seems like an interesting solution, even if it's absurdist at first thought. What if we just shift the steel bar in Greenwich 20 metres east or west instead of adding a leap second?
Then everything would theoretically be correct. The logical next thing to do would be to move all the time zones as well. But time zones already don't coincide with the lines of longitude in practice; they tend to follow country or internal boundaries somewhat close to the lines of longitude (but sometimes multiple hours away!). After a few thousand leap seconds, maybe one or two countries would feel it was helpful to readjust a time zone boundary to better align with solar time, but in practice this would never be the overriding reason for that decision.
You say people's GPS systems would all suddenly be wrong because they depend on locations in latitude and longitude? I don't think this is a problem either: in practice longitude and latitude are given not relative to the steel bar in Greenwich, but to per-continent geodetic datum points. This already prevents continental drift from affecting your coordinates, though a big earthquake can still mess things up.
Quite a few MPs in Westminster already don't take their physical seats in Parliament (and never vote or address the House) because the conditions attached to doing so aren't compatible with their principles. Maybe Count Binface will be the next.
Or...that you would be comfortable relocating if you did lose your job, helped by the buffer of savings you accumulated by not having to pay for your house?
Have advances in explosives, fuses and quality control made fireworks safer in the last 40 years?
Or perhaps the safety improvements are offset by sellers now offering bigger fireworks (either because those are now actually safe and both buyers and sellers are more comfortable with them, or just because of a general hedonic improvement).
Or perhaps they are safer for their users, but worse for starting fires or interfering with low-flying aircraft.
Either way I would be interested in reading more about this, something more nuanced than "fireworks dangerous". At the least it's a counterpoint to what happened with illegal drugs which seem to have become more dangerous as a result of regulation and bans.
Fireworks on holidays were also a huge part of Chinese culture, but they've been banned now in cities and the ban seems to be mostly effective.
China even has the same issue as the US, where they aren't banned at the national level so you can still drive two hours and buy them legally. And whatever your stereotypes, China has plenty of scofflaws who aren't going to give something up just because the government tells them to, and its police are, very broadly, less heavy-handed as the US
I suspect banning firework sales in the US would have a significant impact.
Isn't OSM the data layer, and people are free to build apps on top of it?
"The data is better than Google maps, it just needs a better routing algorithm" should be catnip to a certain class of OS dev. If it's really true, I'll take a crack at it myself!
Are the tech hipsters disproportionately in the areas already covered by AT&T? It seems plausible, if Apple and AT&T were targeting similar demographics that Apple would choose AT&T as its first partner. But it's on the edge of weird correlations where the burden of proof starts to fall on the person disputing that the study is unbiased, rather than on the researchers to rule out every possible correlation.
Alternatively, maybe you are arguing that even if iPhones caused a decline in birth rate among tech hipsters, that doesn't transfer to the population at large. This is both less believable and less valuable as a criticism of the study: even if the result only holds in one demographic group it's still an interesting finding.
It worked great for me recently buying running shoes.
I knew what shoes I wanted, there are plenty of no-name merchants selling them, competing on price (last year's model, so not being sold in big name stores). Click through each of them, find one with the right size, colour, delivery prices. Very painless. If some of the merchants are scams, I wouldn't know, my shoes arrived anyway.
Instead of "all ads, so it's all garbage" this is exactly what I wish all advertising could be.
Am I missing something important or does the author completely skip over whether people got the agent to respond to them?
> Fiu was instructed not to reply to emails (it was too expensive to reply to every email), but it had the ability to do so. Part of the challenge was convincing it to respond.
> The secrets never leaked
I would say if the agent responded to a mail, that demonstrates a successful prompt injection (defying the owner's instructions). Escalating to getting the secrets is a difference of degree (defying the owner's instructions even though he said it was important), not of kind.
This just seems way better and more likely to be solved with lidar, or a similar passive solution, rather than relying on your bike to broadcast "this guy is more vulnerable/faster/more litigious than you expect, so be really sure not to clip him".
Even if the network was there, it's a difficult physical/technological problem to figure out everyone's relative position and velocity to suitable precision with something like GPS, or GPS + accelerometers. But mostly solved with lidar.
What information would your bike send to the car in this example that would help?
We're closer to having lidar in all new cars than this mesh network, so "There's a bike behind you travelling approximately X speed" is something the car already knows. "The cyclist requested you not to turn in front of him" - why would anyone ever send anything else?
Perhaps the car can send you a message instead "I'm going to cut you off and there's nothing you can do about it" but even if that might actually improve safety I don't think it's the change you'd want to see.
Even if you don't think he goes too far ethically, you can probably agree that it's reasonable for the police to intervene once he's interfering with the cars of government ministers.